By Monday evening, the relationship between the Rangers and Michael Young had disintegrated so far they couldn’t even agree on what they disagree on.

The Rangers claim Young recently requested a trade for the second time in 25 months because he changed his mind about his willingness to DH. Young claims he made the request because he changed his mind about his trust in management.

“I’ve kept a low profile out of respect for the team, the coaching staff, my family and the fans because I didn’t want to put anybody on an unnecessary roller coaster,” Young said in his first public comments in more than a month.

“Now, I think it’s important to address the inaccurate portrayal that is being painted. The suggestion that I’ve simply had a change of heart and asked for a trade is a manipulation of the truth. I want to be traded because I’ve been misled and manipulated, and I’m sick of it,” Young added.

There can be no doubt now this is headed for divorce after a decade together. If a trade seemed inevitable over the weekend, it now is an absolute must. And quickly. A team can’t take to camp a supposed leader who questions management’s integrity. Colorado remains the most likely destination, but the Rangers have no leverage whatsoever.

The bigger mystery is what caused a breakup after a decade in which Young became the club’s all-time hits leader and is perhaps a half season away from becoming the all-time games played leader in franchise history.

Young declined to elaborate on how he was misled, saying that would be unproductive for teammates and coaches. It’s clear, though, that something changed over the month since he announced he would move off third base to accommodate the signing of Adrian Beltre.

What led to this point can only be theorized, but it would go something like this: The Rangers publicly said they wanted Young in their plans for 2011, but, in Young’s mind, the team didn’t act like that way.

His agreement to move off third came only after the Rangers had engaged in advanced talks with Colorado. Even after that, the Rangers continued to flirt with free agents whose primary role would have been as a DH option. Both Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez elected to go elsewhere, but the Rangers did trade for Mike Napoli, who had 453 at-bats for the Los Angeles Angels in 2010.

The proposed position change, the flirtations with free agents and the trade talks with other teams could have pushed Young to feel as if the Rangers’ public words and private actions didn’t match and that ultimately the team’s goal was to move him out.

At the same time, however, the Rangers’ words have been consistent: They’ve maintained publicly they want Young to be the primary DH and to play multiple positions as a super utility player. They have indicated that every hitter they pursued would be considered a bench bat. The Rangers didn’t sign Vladimir Guerrero, the most attractive DH option still on the market, immediately after the trade request, and Guerrero has since agreed with Baltimore.

During a Monday afternoon conference call, the Rangers said Young had requested a trade through his agent about 10 days ago and said he’d apparently changed his mind about being willing to DH.

Daniels said the club respected Young’s right to change his mind and would try to accommodate the request if it would upgrade the club. Team president Nolan Ryan said that he spoke twice with Young at the end of last week, but that it became clear Young had made up his mind and was “ready to move on.”

“I’m certainly disappointed that it has come to this,” Young said. “I’ve always wanted to play my career as a life-long Ranger. I’ve tried my best to represent the organization and my family with class and integrity, but I feel like I’ve been backed into a corner.”

On Monday night, he came out swinging. All the remains to be seen is how the Rangers punch back.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.